[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: problems with rationale & design

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 55 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 55 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
felix wrote:

Yet, I find SRFI-7 suboptimal, for various reasons I have already
given (less typing (yes!), more natural, more straightforward, more
portable - across existing implementations).

I refrained the first time around, but I really must object to this
"less typing" advantage. It's an extremely short-sighted reason to
support a proposal. If you want less typing, use macros or scripts to do
the typing for you. It's an extremely trivial advantage, and all too
often it turns into a net disadvantage in the long run.

"less typing" is not the main reason, what also applies is that it
doesn't require another pair of parens (i.e. toplevel forms aren't
toplevel anymore). A very basic little issue, agreed, but why not
make things easy?

As for more natural, more straightforward, more portable: The first two
are aesthetic judgments, and obviously several people disagree with your
subjective opinion.

How many syntactic issues are not aesthetic? SRFI-55 is a *user-interface*,
of course it's intended to be more aestethically pleasing.

Moreover, I'm absolutely convinced that several, if not the majority
of Scheme users (yes, even newbies count), will find it more natural
and convenient.

The last makes no sense whatsoever; how is your
proposal any more portable than SRFI-7?

Because most implementations already provide it (albeit under different
names). SRFI-7 appears to be unpopular among Scheme implementations, so
I consider it a failure.